Thanks for visiting us!

Badminton Central is a free community for fans of badminton! If you find anything useful here please consider registering to see more content and get involved with our great community users, it takes less than 15 seconds! Everybody is welcome here.

Click here for a FREE account!

Shuttle Striking A Non-Receiving Doubles Player During Service

Discussion in 'Rules / Tournament Regulation / Officiating' started by abedeng, Oct 26, 2009.

  1. abedeng

    abedeng Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    18,497
    Likes Received:
    72
    Occupation:
    Occupying Tall Buildings
    Location:
    In Competition
    This was an incident during the Denmark Super Series MD Final between Koo Kien Kiat/Tan Boon Heong against Carsten Mogensen/Mathias Boe:

    Umpire : Car UL Fherghail

    Incident : Malaysia was serving at 15-16 in the rubber. Boe was receiving. The serve went wide off the mark and struck Mogensen (on the non-receiving side of the court) in the midriff. Mogensen proceeded to catch the shuttle with his hand.

    Umpiring Decision and Reason : Malaysia was instructed to play a let, because the line judge was unable to see where the shuttle landed. This was the umpire's own comments.

    Clearly, the line judge was not able to see where it landed because it never did. It was in Mogensen's hand. This was reflected during live play and on TV replays.

    Question 1: Is this reason enough to warrant the Let Rule? Given that the receiver (Boe) was prepared to receive the serve and did not signal for a delay when the shuttle was struck. The serve was struck normally and there was no service fault call, thus the shuttle in flight should be in play before it hit Mogensen.

    Question 2: Does the tournament referee have the right not to entertain a player's request for intervention, and does the umpire have the right to reject such a request?

    I have seen bizarre decisions before but I have never seen referees not responding to a player's request.

    I might add that both umpire and service judge would have been in perfect position to see the incident. Being human, I can also understand if they missed it but it was not reflected by Ms Fherghail's comments as reasons to play the Let.
     
  2. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    ^^My 2.95 sens..^^

    - What do the BWF rules say abt both scenarios? and abt the Let?..
    - Any video links for us to digest this particular incident?..
    - Umpire's interpretation of what's going or what s/he perceives is happening could vary from one to another.
     
  3. Aspire

    Aspire Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Manager
    Location:
    Petaling Jaya
    Umpire mistake

    This was clearly a mistake by both the service judge & also the umpire given the speed of the shuttle is slow (low serve). But both were unable to come to the right call hence the let!

    Secondly the players had every right to call for the tournament referee under such circumstances but their rights is denied. Reasons being:confused::confused:

    Anyway credits should go to Koo & Tan for keeping their cool under such situation and most importantly won the match at the end. Justice served.

    Also Koo earned my respect (although i am no fans of his) when he apologized to the umpire at the end of the match.

    Good sportsmanship.:)
     
  4. Aspire

    Aspire Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Manager
    Location:
    Petaling Jaya
    Law 13.2.3 says It shall be a fault if, in service the shuttle is hit by the receiver's partner. (Boe is hit by the shuttle & caught it with his hand).

    Law 2.5 says when another official is unsighted, the umpire shall make the decision. When no decision can be given, a "let" shall be called.

    Law 16.7.12 also says before faulting the offending side, a warning should be given. Two such faults by a side shall be considered a persistent offence. (did Koo get a warning prior to the fault)?

    Law 17.6.8 also says the umpire shall refer to the referee all unsatisfied appeals on question of law. Such appeal must be made before the next service is delivered or, if at the end of the match, before the side that appeals left the court.

    Thanks God everyone left the court satisfied.;)
     
  5. hhwoot

    hhwoot Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Graduate Student
    Location:
    Urbana, IL
    According to Law 15, the shuttle is "in play". Of course, the shuttle is also "in service", but that is not mutually exclusive with "in play". Therefore according to Law 13:

    "It shall be a 'fault': (13.3.5) if in play, the shuttle touches the person or dress of a player;"
     
  6. abedeng

    abedeng Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    18,497
    Likes Received:
    72
    Occupation:
    Occupying Tall Buildings
    Location:
    In Competition
    Yes, correct. In this case, the shuttle not only touches a player (though not the receiver), the player did not attempt to evade it during flight, and proceeded to catch it.

    Maybe he (instead of the receiver) was not ready. It's the only plausible explanation.
     
  7. venkatesh

    venkatesh Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,115
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    editor
    Location:
    manila
    I don't understand. Why would Mogensen catch the shuttle?
     
  8. abedeng

    abedeng Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    18,497
    Likes Received:
    72
    Occupation:
    Occupying Tall Buildings
    Location:
    In Competition
    As I mentioned, the only plausible explanation was that Mogensen (as the receiver's partner) was not ready during service. And when the shuttle hit his midriff, his reflex action was to catch it with his left hand.

    The videos are now available at the Video Sharing Thread. Have a look for yourself.
     
  9. george@chongwei

    george@chongwei Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,013
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    MIA
    yes, the umpire and the tournament referee is in the wrong in this case.
     
  10. abedeng

    abedeng Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    18,497
    Likes Received:
    72
    Occupation:
    Occupying Tall Buildings
    Location:
    In Competition
    I've reviewed the video again.

    Other than saying that the line judge did not see where the shuttle landed, the umpire also mentioned that she herself did not see the shuttle hitting Mogensen. That is possible, given that she was sitting on Boe's side of the court (left side). Mogensen was on the right side of the court and did move back before the shuttle "impact". Thus the umpire's view could have been blocked by Boe.

    However, at no time was the service judge (who sat at Mogensen's side of the court and would have been in a better position to see the shuttle flight) consulted in this issue.

    Thus, it begs another question, does the rule book allow for the the service judge to be consulted by the umpire on such matters, when both the umpire and line judge is unable to verify? Or is it beyond the duties (ie. illegal) for the service judge to provide input beyond his/her normal service judging duties?
     
    #10 abedeng, Oct 27, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2009
  11. Pisthetairos

    Pisthetairos Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    USA
    The Laws don't specifically mention that the receiver's partner has to be ready before service though. I don't think most people expect to get hit by the shuttle when they're not receiving anyways. Besides, after it hit him it wasn't in play any longer so it's kind of a moot point right?

    Question: Can you intentionally try to hit the receiver's partner in the serve? I've looked but can't seem to find any reason why someone couldn't (aside from the low likelihood of success). Seems kind of unfair that you can get a point for screwing up your service imo.

    As for the service judge, wouldn't they essentially be making a call if consulted in such a manner? Seems like it would be outside of their assigned duties. Don't think that they'd need a rule allowing the umpire to assign additional duties if it were permissible for the service judge to be consulted in such a manner

     
  12. hhwoot

    hhwoot Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    163
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Graduate Student
    Location:
    Urbana, IL
    You can try, but like you said, it's probably not very likely to work. Why is it unfair? If I serve short but you still goes for it and hits the shuttle into the net, then it would be perfectly fair that I win the point.
     
  13. ctjcad

    ctjcad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    19,144
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    u.s.a.
    #13 ctjcad, Oct 27, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2009
  14. Pisthetairos

    Pisthetairos Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    USA
    I was talking about the non receiving player being hit by the serve intentionally. I suppose it should be easy enough to avoid the shuttle in most cases, but it doesn't strike me as fair that someone can get a point if they screw up serving and hit the non receiving opponent. <.<
     
  15. bchaiyow

    bchaiyow Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ontario
    well, think about what if the server flicks serve (and say it's going to land in), and receiver cannot get to it because he rushed, and then the non-receiving player is standing at the back and then the bird hits him......would not be fair for the server if this is a let.....
     
  16. abedeng

    abedeng Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    18,497
    Likes Received:
    72
    Occupation:
    Occupying Tall Buildings
    Location:
    In Competition
    Well, in this case it was a flick serve from TBH, aimed towards the right side of the backcourt of Boe near the centreline (given that Boe's a lefthander and this might force him to use his weaker backhand).

    Unfortunately, it drifted towards Mogensen's right side of the court. Mogensen could have easily avoided the bird by feinting to his right. Instead, he jumped to the back.

    I am in agreement with hwoot, in PPR system, it makes no sense to try and hit the opponent's partner during serve. Unlike a smash, it is relatively easy to avoid a shuttle during service since it has to be hit upwards at lower velocity.
     
  17. Pisthetairos

    Pisthetairos Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    38
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    USA
    I don't doubt that it's easy to avoid, but the possibility of hitting an unsuspecting player by accident, say, when it's blatantly in the wrong court and getting a point, still seems unfair. Not trying to start any kind of in depth discussion on this (since it doesn't really merit it) just commenting.

    What if it's blatantly in the wrong court? I understand the rules, but still think it can be kind of unfair.

    I wasn't asking if it made sense (especially since I noted the low likelihood of success in the question), but rather if it were permissible; as far as I could tell it is. As easy as it is to avoid, I can think of at least one or two players where I play (very casual club) that I could probably manage to hit just for kicks.
     
  18. keith.roche

    keith.roche Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dubai, United Arab Emirates, U
    According to this;

    Law 2.5 says when another official is unsighted, the umpire shall make the decision. When no decision can be given, a "let" shall be called.

    it must be allowed for service judge to be consulted...
     
  19. keith.roche

    keith.roche Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dubai, United Arab Emirates, U
    unless BWF rule does not define " Service Judge " as an official, the decision that the umpire took has to be put up as a CRIME ! .. coz it happened at a crucial stage, in a rubber game, and that too, of a FINALS !
     
  20. Thom_bad

    Thom_bad Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Saskatoon, Canada
    Since the shuttle never hit the floor, it is fault of Mogensen because none player can touch the shuttle with his body.
    The let might be played if there's simultaneous fault, but in this case, the malaysian don't do any fault.
    It is a mistake of the umpire.
     

Share This Page